View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 28 of 38 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #271
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, I'm just not letting you weasel your way out of answering a question by asking another question. It's not at all surprising that you'd try.
    This is course, a lie.
    You're simply tryng to avoid having to provide an answer to my challenge, because you know you cannot.

    How can I prove that?
    Easy:

    I have never claimed that I can back up my argument, and as such, my concession that I cannot does nothing.

    Ok. Your turn.

    You stated:
    However, we do have founding documents that do grant certain rights to the citizenry that the government cannot simply eliminate by fiat
    Now I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE that this is true.
    Please cite the text of the US Constitution that --grants-- the people of the United States their rights.

    If you like, you can also cite from federal law, state constitutions, and state law as well.

    Remember that:
    You have the responsibility to back up your claims. Bald assertion doesn't make something true, but apparently that's all you've got. After all, In honest, open debates, people actually defend their positions with evidence and reason. When do you think you might give that a shot? You don't get to just define things into existence on your say so. Put up or shut up.

    Get to work or admit failure
    Last edited by Goobieman; 11-10-09 at 12:11 PM.

  2. #272
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.

    So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*
    You can prove there are chemicals which are associated with feelings. But what is love exactly, and how does it exist? You can make your own definitions, but I want a meter. How do you prove any abstract?

    There are plenty of ways to properly argue for natural rights. I suggest you start by reading Hobbes and Locke, then move on to the more advanced theories from there.

    To say there is no natural rights is to say that any human does not have the right to protect themselves against violence against their person. That they have no say in protecting what's theirs, for reaping the benefits of their labor, etc. These are obviously wrong, it's self-evident for anyone wishing to be honest. All humans are human in the end. We're not different. While we can live in different societies and different cultures, human is human. If humans are the same, if all men are created equal, then there must be a set of underlying rights which are inherent to humans, discovered through reason.

    The problem here is that you reject all the proof. That the logic and reason which leads one to understand natural rights, you won't accept. You say where's the proof, I say the proof is in humanity. If you consider the natural state of man, and what humans in general should always be allowed to protect. There's no point in continuing the conversation with you when you refuse to engage in any form of productive debate. You just say the same thing over and over again while blanket refusing to hear the arguments for natural rights. So it's pointless to engage with the close minded. Natural rights were discovered through philosophy and easy to see if you accept the base premise that all humans are equal on some level.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #273
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    There are plenty of ways to properly argue for natural rights. I suggest you start by reading Hobbes and Locke, then move on to the more advanced theories from there.
    I have, thanks. I found them unconvincing.

    To say there is no natural rights is to say that any human does not have the right to protect themselves against violence against their person.
    You seem to be confusing "rights" with "ability". A person has the ability to protect themselves against violence. Do they have the right to do so? That's the question. Under what conditions does their ability to act become a right to act? How does one differentiate between the two?

    These are obviously wrong, it's self-evident for anyone wishing to be honest.
    Sorry, but these are serious red-flags. Anyone who starts talking about "self-evident" and "if you're honest, you'll believe this" is out into illogical emotional-appeal lala-land. It is only self-evident if someone already agrees with you, otherwise you're trying to denegrate people who don't see things eye-to-eye with you without actually backing up your views. It's blatantly dishonest.

    The problem here is that you reject all the proof.
    It isn't that I reject the proof, the problem here is that you've never PRODUCED ANY! You've just repeated over and over that you're right and anyone who disagrees is dishonest in their evaluation. Proof requires objective evidence that anyone can examine openly and without restriction regardless of their current position. That seems to be the problem. Apparently, the only way to accept your position is true is to already accept your position is true. It's circular. You're admiring the Emperor's New Clothes and refusing to acknowledge that objectively, he's naked. Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #274
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    You seem to be confusing "rights" with "ability". A person has the ability to protect themselves against violence. Do they have the right to do so? That's the question. Under what conditions does their ability to act become a right to act? How does one differentiate between the two?
    No, you have. My questions weren't a question of ability. The ability is there. The questions were asking whether or not it is just action, defendable action, if it's right to take that course of action.

    Can a person defend their life if threatened? Is it proper action to take? Is it right for them to do so.
    Can a person defend their property if threatened? If stolen, is that person entitled to compensation from those whom stole? Is it right to take action to protect one's property?
    Can a person defend their liberty? If another comes to enslave someone, can the rightfully fight back? Is it proper action to take?

    That's what is being asked. Not whether the action can be taken, but is it a just action. Is the person legitimately able to do these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Sorry, but these are serious red-flags. Anyone who starts talking about "self-evident" and "if you're honest, you'll believe this" is out into illogical emotional-appeal lala-land. It is only self-evident if someone already agrees with you, otherwise you're trying to denegrate people who don't see things eye-to-eye with you without actually backing up your views. It's blatantly dishonest.
    No, it's blatantly obvious. You refuse to accept any argument to the contrary is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    It isn't that I reject the proof, the problem here is that you've never PRODUCED ANY! You've just repeated over and over that you're right and anyone who disagrees is dishonest in their evaluation. Proof requires objective evidence that anyone can examine openly and without restriction regardless of their current position. That seems to be the problem. Apparently, the only way to accept your position is true is to already accept your position is true. It's circular. You're admiring the Emperor's New Clothes and refusing to acknowledge that objectively, he's naked. Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.
    I've said plenty. You've avoided questions, misrepresented what I was trying to say, and flat out refuse to hear any argument upon it. You merely state there is no natural law without proof of your own. You refuse to acknowledge argument from the other side to continue saying "no, you're wrong, I'm right" over and over again. that's it.

    In the end, the USA was founded on the ideal of natural rights and if I have to take your word or the founders....I'm probably going to side with the founders. Something tells me they knew a little some more about tyranny, the fight for freedom, and the understanding of rights.

    To reject natural rights is to say that humans are not fundamentally equal.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #275
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.
    Similarly, your lack of response speaks volumes.

  6. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Again, this is a definition of functionality. You're basically saying that because I can be killed, I don't have the right to life.
    Keep building those strawmen. It seems to be your favorite way to win an argument, by arguing against yourself. Of course, you also lose the argument at the same time, but what the hey, if it makes you happy, who are we to complain?

    Actually, I said since the broad has the right to murder babies, from conception, and according to you , it was "disovered", not created, that means all woman had this mysterious right. But all woman start out as babies (amazing, isn't it?) who presumably have this right to life thingy. But their incubator has this right to murder babies inside them thingy. The babies have it, too. So which right actually exists? One can't really have the right to life when your mother has the right to kill you, regardless of her choice to exercise it. You yourself claim that innate rights can't go away just because someon chooses not to exercise them.

    So, since the incubator's right to murder babies inside her conflicts with the baby-inside-the-incubator's right to live, one of those rights cannot exist.

    Since each right is equal, the only conclusion is that neither the right to kill babies and the right to live have any reality, and they're only moral concepts invented by the living.

    I ain't wasting my time reading the rest of your drivel, until you acknowledge the logic presented above and either refute it or concede. If you simply restate your assertion without any attached logical argument or evidence, you're conceding.

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?
    Techinically, the smallest government possible is the nuclear family, or even smaller, two people alone in a cave, on an island, in the middle of the Great American Prairie, where they have to come to agreements, derived by any means imaginable, on the limits of behavior.

    That wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

    Seriously, tell me you didn't have problems figuring that out and your question was merely rhetorical. That you knew that "freedom" is just another word for nothing left to lose.

  8. #278
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven,
    Axioms are by definition, unproven assumptions about initial conditions.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, you have. My questions weren't a question of ability. The ability is there. The questions were asking whether or not it is just action, defendable action, if it's right to take that course of action.
    The peasant who uses his pitchfork to kill the prince raping his daughter doesn't have the right to do that. Just ask the king who orders him drawn and quartered.

    You may FEEL the peasant had the right to do this, from your 21st century perspective, but since he wasn't strong enough to place limits on his government, the king, he didn't have that right. He only had emotions and desires.

    Ya see, if someone has the right to do something, there's no legal consequences for exercising that right. Rights are really nothing more than specially defined privileges the majority defines for the society.

    Is there some reason you have to pretend rights are mystical gifts from the Invisible Impalpable Sky Pixie?

  10. #280
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Techinically, the smallest government possible is the nuclear family, or even smaller, two people alone in a cave, on an island, in the middle of the Great American Prairie, where they have to come to agreements, derived by any means imaginable, on the limits of behavior.

    That wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

    Seriously, tell me you didn't have problems figuring that out and your question was merely rhetorical.
    Seriously, you don't really think this answers my question, do you?

    I asked you "Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government" and your respons is... government?

    Please try harder next time.

Page 28 of 38 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •